Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:43 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:06 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
Ouch.

http://biggovernment.com/sahiller/2010/ ... ontrunner/

Quote:
Why is Mitt Romney even in the running, when healthcare played such an important role in the mid-term elections as noted by Rasmussen:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those who voted in today’s elections nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill passed by congressional Democrats in March, including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

Rasmussen Reports telephone surveying nationwide after the polls closed found that 40% are opposed to repeal, with 32% who Strongly Oppose it.

This mirrors what we have found every week in surveys since March.

Romney, as most know, is the one-term governor of Massachusetts and the creator of RomneyCare. With two Massachusetts’s miracles for the state, a trifecta may be a tall order when presented on the national stage for the presidency–especially when Republican Senator Scott Brown, also from MA, has some questionable leanings.

But, then again, maybe not.

Quinnipiac released its latest poll showing Romney, ahead of former Governor Mike Huckabee, and edging out President Obama in 2012:

In trial heats for 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney receives 45 percent to 44 percent for Obama, while the president gets 46 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Matched against Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a virtual unknown to most voters, the president leads 45 – 36 percent.

Romney and Obama do matchup well, but maybe on the same side of the aisle as Romney is quite RINOish. In addition to their love of government-run healthcare, Obama and Romney do have some other public relations commonality; they play to the ignorance of the people by capitalizing on their popularity.

Democrat Tom Daschle, as seen in this PBS interview, explained Obama’s situation for 2008 the presidential run:

Why the 2008 window for Obama?

I think the window is important for a couple of reasons. One, it was an open opportunity — that is, he wasn’t running against an incumbent; and secondly, because the longer he’s in Washington, the more history he has, and the more history he has, the more he’s going to be explaining his votes and his actions and his statements and his positions that undermine his message. His message is one of change, his message is one of new direction, and it’s harder to do that after you’ve been in Washington for a long time.

Daschle is correct. Romney was elected governor after his popular role as CEO of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics, but did not seek a second term as MA governor under the guise that everyone expected him to run for president. But, really, could his dropping approval ratings as governor have played a larger role in that decision not to seek a second term. An incumbent loss would have been a PR disaster for Romney and would have crushed any hope of a presidential run. And Obama, well, we are watching the unraveling of a radical left-wing presidency that continues to govern against the will of the people.

Entering into the 2012 relentless campaign season, both have records on healthcare and the tea partiers are not going to let Romney forget, Obama just got mauled in the mid-terms, but on the other hand will the “general” voting public remember come 2012? Romney’s slick PR campaign, which he can afford, sanitizes his political persona.

Self-righteous and ideological politicians tend to bank their power hopes on the gullibility and short memories of the electorate. Romney’s history on taxes and, well, RomneyCare should immediately disqualify him from the 2012 Republican nod as should his zeal to be president. President Eisenhower once said, “Any man who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy.” Those words ring true today, don’t they?

Editor’s Note: The use of a photo of Mitt Romney speaking at Heritage Foundation was deliberate. Conservative activists don’t fully understand the role that Heritage played in passing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Nor do they understand fully that Heritage was a pioneer of the “individual mandate” provision that was incorporated into Obamacare.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 12:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Crrrrrrazy! What accounts for Romney still showing any strength against Obama? A surprising number of people must think that good looks and money count for more than sound policy and a consistently honorable path such as Mike Huckabee trods, esp. against government run health care. Something else than ideology must make them vote against their own better sense!?
PrinciplesMatter wrote:
Ouch.

http://biggovernment.com/sahiller/2010/ ... ontrunner/

Quote:
Why is Mitt Romney even in the running, when healthcare played such an important role in the mid-term elections as noted by Rasmussen:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those who voted in today’s elections nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill passed by congressional Democrats in March, including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

Rasmussen Reports telephone surveying nationwide after the polls closed found that 40% are opposed to repeal, with 32% who Strongly Oppose it.

This mirrors what we have found every week in surveys since March.

Romney, as most know, is the one-term governor of Massachusetts and the creator of RomneyCare. With two Massachusetts’s miracles for the state, a trifecta may be a tall order when presented on the national stage for the presidency–especially when Republican Senator Scott Brown, also from MA, has some questionable leanings.

But, then again, maybe not.

Quinnipiac released its latest poll showing Romney, ahead of former Governor Mike Huckabee, and edging out President Obama in 2012:

In trial heats for 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney receives 45 percent to 44 percent for Obama, while the president gets 46 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Huckabee. Matched against Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a virtual unknown to most voters, the president leads 45 – 36 percent.


Romney and Obama do matchup well, but maybe on the same side of the aisle as Romney is quite RINOish. In addition to their love of government-run healthcare, Obama and Romney do have some other public relations commonality; they play to the ignorance of the people by capitalizing on their popularity.

Democrat Tom Daschle, as seen in this PBS interview, explained Obama’s situation for 2008 the presidential run:

Why the 2008 window for Obama?

I think the window is important for a couple of reasons. One, it was an open opportunity — that is, he wasn’t running against an incumbent; and secondly, because the longer he’s in Washington, the more history he has, and the more history he has, the more he’s going to be explaining his votes and his actions and his statements and his positions that undermine his message. His message is one of change, his message is one of new direction, and it’s harder to do that after you’ve been in Washington for a long time.

Daschle is correct. Romney was elected governor after his popular role as CEO of the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics, but did not seek a second term as MA governor under the guise that everyone expected him to run for president. But, really, could his dropping approval ratings as governor have played a larger role in that decision not to seek a second term. An incumbent loss would have been a PR disaster for Romney and would have crushed any hope of a presidential run. And Obama, well, we are watching the unraveling of a radical left-wing presidency that continues to govern against the will of the people.

Entering into the 2012 relentless campaign season, both have records on healthcare and the tea partiers are not going to let Romney forget, Obama just got mauled in the mid-terms, but on the other hand will the “general” voting public remember come 2012? Romney’s slick PR campaign, which he can afford, sanitizes his political persona.

Self-righteous and ideological politicians tend to bank their power hopes on the gullibility and short memories of the electorate. Romney’s history on taxes and, well, RomneyCare should immediately disqualify him from the 2012 Republican nod as should his zeal to be president. President Eisenhower once said, “Any man who wants to be president is either an egomaniac or crazy.” Those words ring true today, don’t they?

Editor’s Note: The use of a photo of Mitt Romney speaking at Heritage Foundation was deliberate. Conservative activists don’t fully understand the role that Heritage played in passing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Nor do they understand fully that Heritage was a pioneer of the “individual mandate” provision that was incorporated into Obamacare.


Another reason to be thankful for the Tea Party movement: They are not going to let people forget RomneyCare.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:10 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Liked: 54
I have been asking this question and a similar question regarding 2008 every since I learned of Romney's actions while governor. That this has not been shouted from the house tops by all so called "conservative" voices is the main reason I learned to distrust them so emphatically.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:16 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 am
Posts: 2017
Likes: 71
Liked: 66
I don't think that (nonpolitical) people honestly have any idea about the similarities between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. It wasn't an issue last cycle, in fact, Romney tried to use it as a strength. Obama only talked about it a couple of times, so I'm inclined to believe that ordinary people just don't know. I think once the "attacks" start coming in on Romney in the primary season, his numbers will shrink bigtime.

_________________
Brett

--Attention Guests--
Join the Discussion!
Click the graphic to join!
Image

:army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:47 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Liked: 54
bmk2307 wrote:
It wasn't an issue last cycle.

True, it was not for them, but it was for me, and it should have been for all true conservatives. Why could they see the problem so clearly when Obama did it, but were blind when Romney did the same and even worse. Yes, I said worse, because Obamacare didn't overtly spell out $50 publicly subsidized abortions. In fact, the truth is that all tax payers throughout the nation ended up and paid for those abortions because RomneyCare had to be supported by federal funds in order to be viable. The mandate was an essential part of RomneyCare, and yet this was the main complaint against ObamaCare heard on talk-radio.

Ignorance is no excuse for them. Even if it were believable that they could have been that ignorant of their chosen "conservative" darlings record, what should they have done once they had become informed? Should not everyone everywhere have heard how wrong they had been and how wrong Romney was. Instead, we have them continuing to defend him.

You know this would not have been the case if Huckabee had been the one to bring in such a horrendous policy in Arkansas. Their utter hypocrisy and contempt for the truth and even the intelligence of their audience is astounding. Have they no conscience? Have they no scruples? Is it all just a game to make them money and give them notoriety? Where is the consistency and outrage at Romney's record as they self-righteously displayed towards Obama?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:07 pm 
Offline
General

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 1165
Likes: 39
Liked: 41
ByourCreator,

I said the same thing in the 2008 campaign. All the Fox pundits and other Republican pundits ignored all the anti-Conservative record Romney had in MA. I even sent an e-mail to Club for Growth and asked them how why they didn't blast Romney like they did Huckabee because of Romney's record. Of course, I had no reply. When I heard Hannity say how important the social issue of abortion was and then he supported Guiliani first and then Romney, I completely lost any trust in what he said.

Now the whole Fox crew are supporting Palin, they continue to support the wrong candidate. Last night Hannity had a whole hour of just Palin. Where is the fair and balanced for Fox News, and Huckabee even works there?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:44 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
Palin is becoming overexposed, much like Obama did.

Remember what Huckabee said on the View, if people are not sick of seeing me then I might run.

With DWTS, Alaska's SP, a full hour on Hannity, and her book, the general public might be getting a little tired of Palin.

I am sure that Huckabee knows the risk of over-exposure.

Fans of each group are happy to see more, but the general public has a limit.

Huckabee has always been politically savvy. He knows on his show when to move away from politics and provide the viewers with some happy, humorous, patriotic moments and when to talk about the issues.

I trust Huckabee to do the same with himself.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: Western Virginia
Likes: 368
Liked: 133
Quote:
Editor’s Note: The use of a photo of Mitt Romney speaking at Heritage Foundation was deliberate. Conservative activists don’t fully understand the role that Heritage played in passing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. Nor do they understand fully that Heritage was a pioneer of the “individual mandate” provision that was incorporated into Obamacare.


Anyone know anything about Heritage's role in this? It must be a money connection, but what?

_________________
"Never, Never, NEVER GIVE UP" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:42 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
http://volokh.com/2010/03/29/was-the-in ... ican-idea/

In 1993, for example, Heritage’s Stuart Butler testified before Congress in support of a new, “more rational” social contract under which government would provide greater assistance to those lacking health care in return for greater individual responsibility. Explained Butler:

Quote:
This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
Quote:
The Heritage Foundation had its Emily Litella moment today. In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the conservative think tank acknowledged that it was once a true believer in requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. But now that a Democratic president has embraced the idea, “Never mind.”


http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blog ... raced.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:37 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: Western Virginia
Likes: 368
Liked: 133
PrinciplesMatter wrote:
Quote:
The Heritage Foundation had its Emily Litella moment today. In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the conservative think tank acknowledged that it was once a true believer in requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. But now that a Democratic president has embraced the idea, “Never mind.”


http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blog ... raced.html

Thanks, David. This makes me sick to my stomach. How could they ever have thought this was a good idea?

_________________
"Never, Never, NEVER GIVE UP" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:57 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 3475
Likes: 0
Liked: 6
They were trying to come up with a system that insured everyone without doing a government-run socialized system. Not a good solution.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY